Monday, 6 August 2018

Question of the Day: So, what's an 'Obleftivist'?

Q: So, what's an 'Obleftivist'?A: "It’s a term used by people who are upset that many Objectivists dislike Trump, aren’t racists, and not paranoid about immigration by Muslims, or non-white people, etc."
~ Facebooker Tom Burroughes

23 comments:

I contend that the word originates precisely because prominent Objectivists were once again implying that voting Democrat was preferable to the lesser of the two evils. Leonard Peikoff tried that once, and since then has recanted. The Anti-Rand Institute has since been up to the same tricks. Some of us won't get fooled again.

Here at Not PC 31st August 2016 you wrote “Furthermore, Mr Perigo has explicitly repudiated Objectivism, which he now calls "Obleftivism" (whatever that means).” July 16, 2015:Trump officially announced his candidacy for president of the United States in a speech given from Trump Tower in New York City.

Yaron Brook titled his BlogTalkRadio show of March 5, 2016 “What Can We Learn from the Primaries?” [Caller:] I get the impression that he loves America. He’s an American phenomenon. Compared to Hillary and Obama – I don’t know which one of the two hates America more, it’s hard to tell – at least Trump is the opposite of that. No matter his ideas might be wrong, he might be muddled, he might— [over-talking as Mr. Brook interrupts]

[YB:] “I don’t know if that’s true. I don’t know if I agree with that. I don’t get a sense that he loves America. ...”

At one point the caller tries to interrupt the cataract of words but is talked over. Mr. Brook finally winds down, saying Trump “has no clue ... what America really stands for” ... “you have to know something in order to love it ... .”

Mr. Brook says that if the election came to Clinton versus Trump, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, would be a better option than either: “He’s a proven politician. He did what looks like a decent job in New York, and he’s got some real backing at the center of the political map.” When the caller says Bloomberg might try to outlaw 16 ounce sodas, Mr. Brook is quick to reply:“He probably wouldn’t eliminate free speech in America, which is I fear what Donald Trump would do.” We’ve given Yaron Brook enough rope to hang himself several times over. He makes five wishful and not too consistent claims: (1) Trump has no principles, (2) Trump is a fascist, (3) Trump has no positions, (4) Trump will fail to implement any of his positions, (5) Americans who support Trump are nitwits and fools.We are well aware of Trump’s faults but for the most part – like 98% or whatever – Mr. Brook smears rather than honestly criticizes. He is so over the top – for Trump principles don’t exist, he doesn’t know what freedom means, he can’t mention the Constitution because he’s anti-Constitution, etc. – that it’s clear Mr. Brook is motivated by something other than concern for the truth.

I'm not sure if Lindsay Perigo is the originator of "Obleftivist", but he's the only one I've seen use it. I've read enough of what he's written to know he doesn't just use it against Democrat voting Objectivists as implied in the comments above (who are surely a tiny minority), but throws it around with gay abandon at anyone who doesn't support the same conservatives / nationalists he admires, or sometimes simply at those who don't get as angry as he does at some travesty of the Left.

All this splintering and hostility, between people who should generally be on the same side is not healthy. The splits are usually not driven be fundamental differences in philosophy, but in interpretation and emphasis. They are differences in what we're prepared to forgive and what we won't forgive; what is a deal breaker in liking someone, and what is not. It's driven by our unique personality and emotions more than anything else.

Short of someone being predominantly evil or corrupt, my approach is simply to recognize and take the good from someone, and ignore (or sometimes debate) what I regard as their flaws. When their influence is generally positive, it's contrary to my own self interest, and usually contrary to winning a better culture to overly focus on the negative and resort to name calling. That applies equally to whether the term being thrown around is "Obleftivist", or whether it's in dismissing our recent Canadian visitors as racist/nationalist trolls.

The best recent example of this approach is the discussion that Rubin chaired between Jordan Peterson and Brook/Salmieri. They were able to discuss what they had in common, and where they differed in a mutually beneficial way, without getting hostile. In the context of the times we live in, what they have in common is far more important than any differences.

I largely agree: civility is one of the values we support, and which (these days) is more unseen than seen. My only caution would be that not everyone in every discussion or debate is really saying what they mean, or meaning what they say -- too many have other motives, or are truly just trolling (as I'm convinced those visitors were).But otherwise, yes, I agree with you. Short of someone being evil or corrupt (or trolling or dissembling), civil engagement is good.

I'm not sure she uncovers very much at all in that discussion -- he's a fellow who appears a little unprepared for her kind of trolling, but to gleefully giggle about "sharia" is just absurd. He's doing very little different there than, say, UK police do when they stop soccer supporters heading towards opposing supporters' pubs. (And as a journalist pointed out to her, it's hardly "monocultural" even in the sense she means when the shops and restaurants have folk from everywhere, and directly over the road from their interview was a straight-up bogan pub full of beer drinkers shouting abuse at her.)Not to ignore that her comment on leaving New Zealand ("Enjoy sharia law") simply demonstrates how little she had bothered to learn about this place (or any place?) before she came here to lecture us about it.So to be honest, I'm not really sure she has much to contribute beyond the trolling.

It highlighted the less overt threat to free speech that results from cultural relativism, and the police refusal to uphold the right to free assembly and free speech in a "highly religious" environment. She might offend the Muslims outside that mosque, they might get violent, and if so she would be held accountable for their violence, and might even be breaking a law. It's not comparable to two groups of soccer hooligans, where there's good grounds to believe either might become violent. A very bad precedent for free speech was set by the police sending her a $68k invoice for security at one venue too, because it sends a clear message that if the Left want to financially punish someone they don't like, they simply have to threaten them with violence. Does that not worry you?

I agree that she over-stated how "monocultural" it was in a place like Lakemba, and the "sharia law" comment was an exaggeration - but getting back to me earlier comment, that's a negative I consider far from important to highlight in this context. In any case it's where we could be headed if the trend is not reversed.

All my life I have seen all kinds of religious nut-jobs on footpaths and street corners, saying all kinds of things. Never once have I felt offended because they knock my atheism. Never once have I felt like getting violent towards them, or felt that the police should remove them on my behalf. I have even at times, for the fun of it, engaged them in discussion and debate. I would be appalled if the police were to remove them on my behalf, or if anyone attacked them. That is my culture. It seems that my culture is not welcome in Lakemba. That says to me that Australia is disappearing from Lakemba. To think that it might be Shariah that is replacing it, is not an unreasonable.

Mr. Brook criticizes Hillary Clinton – the presumptive Democratic nominee – for a number of valid reasons, though naturally not for her support of open borders, NAFTA, redefining marriage, and other Neocon and Cultural Leftist causes. But the emotional level of that criticism is far lower than what he lavishes on Trump, and the time he spends on it far less. The prospect of a President Trump scares him to death, he never (or if I missed it, very rarely) says “scary” in reference to a President Hillary.

And that is precisely the prospect we face today: President Hillary, the creature who thinks Nineteen-Eighty-Four is an instruction manual.

Yet the OrgOists – uttering “freedom” and “principle” and all those fine words – trash and smear and malign beyond recognition the only Republican who is capable of beating Hillary. They call him the fascist ! They will never be able to walk away from all the mud they have slung, and won’t want to. When the choice comes to Trump vs. Hillary the OrgOists will opt for Hillary.

Trump overcame the corruption within the RNC by winning so many votes and delegates that he could not be swept aside. When Trump becomes president we can write fini to the neoconservatives as a political force. Mr. Brook’s most telling slur is against the people making this possible, Trump’s supporters. Nitwits and fools are they? He should hope, if he expects his radio show and podcast speeches to sway them.

Rand often referred to the breach between the intellectuals and the American people, and Yaron Brook is an illustration par excellence. The members of the Ayn Rand Institute are not Ayn Rand’s “New Intellectuals,” they are Cultural Leftist retreads masquerading as Objectivists. In another manifestation they are Neocons.

They promoted Bush in 2000, the Iraq War in 2003 and smeared Ron Paul in 2012. That they smear – not just legitimately criticize but smear – Donald Trump now, shows once again that in the marketplace of ideas the Ayn Rand Institute has nothing to sell."

In a referendum on 23 June 2016, 51.9% of the participating UK electorate voted to leave the EU; the turnout was 72.2%. The voters were tired of Europe’s unelected commissars deciding their fate to the benefit of supremacist invaders.

“I’m not quite willing to give [even] two cheers to BREXIT. I’m giving it one cheer, maybe ... half a cheer, until I see evidence that something good is going to come of this.”

Greg, your rambling answer seems to be have been plagiarised from somewhere. Which violation of copyright would usually be removed. But at least midst the rambling you've helped to confirm the word's definition, as above, and to clarify its source, and target.For what that's worth.[Having said that, I've taken down the last comment, which links to a white supremacy website. I'm not hosting that.]

An Obleftivist is someone who calls himself an Objectivist, but aligns with the hard-left. An example is in aligning with the hard-left by conflating national pride (patriotism) with the worst kind of Nationalism in the quest to break down the nation state in favour of a borderless world. A world where there will be on such thing as a German, or a Creek, or a Swiss, or any other kind of nationality. Just an amorphous blob of kumbaya-humanity.

1. Comments are welcome and encouraged. 2. Comments are moderated. Gibberish, spam & off-topic grandstanding will be removed. Tu quoque will be moderated. Links to bogus news sites (and worse) will be deleted.3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say it, it's important enough to put a name to it.5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.